Effect of a planned training session on good clinical practice knowledge in research professionals: A pilot study

Integrating ICH Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Principles and Essential Documentation into Dermatology Residency Education in China

Integrating International Council for Harmonisation Good Clinical Practice (ICH GCP) principles, including essential documentation and ethical standards, into medical education is crucial for building clinical trial capabilities and advancing research literacy. However, dermatology residency programs in China currently lack a formal framework for incorporating these principles. This perspective article proposes a three-module curriculum tailored to address this gap and align Chinese dermatology residency education with international standards. The first module, Foundational Clinical Research Knowledge, introduced in the second year of residency, covers key GCP principles, such as the roles and responsibilities of IRB/IEC, investigators, and sponsors, as well as the significance of essential documents like clinical protocols and investigator brochures. The second module, Dermatology Subspecialty Training with GCP Principles, conducted in the third year, emphasizes advanced trial design, protocol amendments, and investigator responsibilities. The third module, Communication and Ethics Training, spans both years, focusing on interdisciplinary collaboration, IRB/IEC responsibilities, and ethical decision-making. The curriculum incorporates stepwise learning, hands-on exercises, and regular assessments while addressing practical barriers such as resource and cost limitations through faculty-supported programs. By fostering critical thinking and interdisciplinary communication, this model aims to equip residents with the skills to lead ethically sound, patient-centered clinical trials, ultimately advancing evidence-based dermatology education and practice in China.

Evaluating the Impact of a Good Clinical Practice Workshop on the Knowledge and Attitude of Postgraduate Medical Students

Background Good clinical practice (GCP) is critical for the safety of participants and the quality of data generated during clinical studies. A GCP workshop can enhance the knowledge and attitude of postgraduate medical students towards GCP. Thus, a study was needed to assess the impact of such a workshop. This study aims to assess the impact of such a workshop on GCP for postgraduate medical students. Methodology A GCP workshop was organized for postgraduate medical students. We evaluated the workshop's effectiveness using the Kirkpatrick model of training evaluation. We collected the participant's knowledge and attitude using pre- and post-tests, questionnaires, and their feedback. We applied the Shapiro-Wilk test and the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test to the collected data. Results A total of 79 postgraduate students from different academic years participated in the workshop. The Shapiro-Wilk test, z-test, and Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, with p-values < 0.05, clearly outlined the positive impact of the workshop on the participant's knowledge and attitude. Box plots for pre- and post-test responses for knowledge and attitude reinforced this finding. The feedback identified the need for more interactive and case-based workshop delivery. Conclusion This study clearly outlines the positive impact of conducting a workshop on GCP for postgraduate medical students.

A Brief Review on Good Clinical Practice and its Training Methods

The field of clinical research continues to advance, and for ethical conduct of research, researchers need to have a strong foundation in good clinical practice (GCP). GCP guidelines are internationally recognized standards that govern the conduct of clinical trials, ensuring the protection of human subjects and the generation of reliable data. However, novice researchers or postgraduate medical students who would delve into research activities may face difficulty getting avenues for GCP training. Hence, in this brief review article, we discuss the significance of GCP in the field of clinical research with a glimpse of its history, development, and key principles. We provide a list of online courses, benefits, and disadvantages of those courses, and a list of organizations that conduct GCP workshops or continued medical education programs in India.

Study on good clinical practices among researchers in a tertiary healthcare institute in India

BACKGROUND

Good clinical practice (GCP) is put in place to protect human participants in clinical trials as well as to ensure the quality of research. Non-adherence to these guidelines can produce research that may not meet the standards set by the scientific community. Therefore, it must be ensured that researchers are well-versed in the GCP. But not much is known about the knowledge and practices of the GCP in the medical colleges of North India.

AIM

To assess the knowledge and practices of researchers about GCP and analyze these with respect to the demographics of participants.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study. A self-structured questionnaire about GCP, after expert validations, was circulated among researchers, at a tertiary healthcare institute, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh. A total of 59 individuals, who were selected by universal sampling, participated in the study. All healthcare workers who have been investigators of Institutional Ethics Committee-approved research projects, except residents and faculty, and are still a part of the institute have been included in the study. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of AIIMS, Rishikesh. We used descriptive analysis and the Chi-squared test to analyze data. P value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Out of 59 participants, only 11 (18.6%) were certified for GCP. Most of the participants (64.4%) had "Average" knowledge, 33.9% had "Good" knowledge and 1.7% had "Poor" knowledge. Only 49% of participants had satisfactory practices related to GCP. There was a significant difference in the knowledge based on the current academic position for the items assessing knowledge of institutional review board (P = 0.010), confidentiality & privacy (P = 0.011), and participant safety & adverse events (P < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in knowledge of research misconduct (P = 0.024) and participant safety & adverse events (P = 0.011) based on certification of GCP. There was a notable difference in the practices related to recruitment & retention on the basis of current academic position (P < 0.001) and certification of GCP (P = 0.023). We also observed a considerable difference between the knowledge and practices of GCP among the participants (P = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Participants have basic knowledge of GCP but show a lack thereof in certain domains of GCP. This can be addressed by holding training sessions focusing on these particular domains.

Study on good clinical practices among researchers in a tertiary healthcare institute in India

BACKGROUND

Good clinical practice (GCP) is put in place to protect human participants in clinical trials as well as to ensure the quality of research. Non-adherence to these guidelines can produce research that may not meet the standards set by the scientific community. Therefore, it must be ensured that researchers are well-versed in the GCP. But not much is known about the knowledge and practices of the GCP in the medical colleges of North India.

AIM

To assess the knowledge and practices of researchers about GCP and analyze these with respect to the demographics of participants.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study. A self-structured questionnaire about GCP, after expert validations, was circulated among researchers, at a tertiary healthcare institute, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Rishikesh. A total of 59 individuals, who were selected by universal sampling, participated in the study. All healthcare workers who have been investigators of Institutional Ethics Committee-approved research projects, except residents and faculty, and are still a part of the institute have been included in the study. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of AIIMS, Rishikesh. We used descriptive analysis and the Chi-squared test to analyze data. P value < 0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Out of 59 participants, only 11 (18.6%) were certified for GCP. Most of the participants (64.4%) had “Average” knowledge, 33.9% had “Good” knowledge and 1.7% had “Poor” knowledge. Only 49% of participants had satisfactory practices related to GCP. There was a significant difference in the knowledge based on the current academic position for the items assessing knowledge of institutional review board (P = 0.010), confidentiality & privacy (P = 0.011), and participant safety & adverse events (P < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in knowledge of research misconduct (P = 0.024) and participant safety & adverse events (P = 0.011) based on certification of GCP. There was a notable difference in the practices related to recruitment & retention on the basis of current academic position (P < 0.001) and certification of GCP (P = 0.023). We also observed a considerable difference between the knowledge and practices of GCP among the participants (P = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Participants have basic knowledge of GCP but show a lack thereof in certain domains of GCP. This can be addressed by holding training sessions focusing on these particular domains.